Commons-hosted Muhammad Images Options

[Mister Die]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

[Tarc]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

That is a valid concern, but I believe the current set of images in the article has gone through quite a rigorous debate to justify their inclusion. If someone ever tried to insert say the bomb turban image, that'd never pass.

[HRIP7]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

[Web Fred]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

During which time they get educated by those who do know what they're talking about. And there is one reason why Wikipedia can be a good thing ™.

[HRIP7]

To me the problems arise when people aren't putting the photo in because it's a portrayal of Muhammad, but because they want to show how "uncensored" Wikipedia is. It's a bit like how so many articles on sexual issues have unnecessarily graphic photographs, often more than one. Ditto with some medical articles.

In these cases it isn't about encyclopedic quality (not like Wikipedia actually has that), but demonstrating how "free" Wikipedia is to annoy others.

Quite. That's why you get people who can't tell the difference between sunnis and shiites, and who would interpret a reference to the Quran's light verse to mean that there must be a section with limericks in it, earnestly and passionately contributing to the debate.

During which time they get educated by those who do know what they're talking about. And there is one reason why Wikipedia can be a good thing ™.

That can sometimes happen.

[Wikitaka]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

[Mister Die]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

Filling the "War" article with tons of color photos of graphic mutilations, bodies after being destroyed by grenades, dead babies, etc. will demonstrate that Wikipedia isn't censored (at least not for the stuff it doesn't mind being uncensored), but it'll also demonstrate that it's incapable of being a responsible encyclopedia and instead serves as a shock site.

It'd be like adding "Piss Christ" to the Jesus article.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Thu 29th March 2012, 9:29am

[Web Fred]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

[Wikitaka]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

Disregard it. It was intended to be sarcastic.

One of the most shocking comments in the debate is the "jewish" Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment that claims that an instructional hatnote would be a "reasonal adaptation" to the 1% or so of Muslim readers...

And I thought Jews hated Muslims.

[Web Fred]

Why not use the Muhammad cartoon? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored.

Because it's copyrighted?

I'm not sure deliberately causing offence is ideal criteria for Fair Use.

Disregard it. It was intended to be sarcastic.

One of the most shocking comments in the debate is the "jewish" Kiefer Wolfowitz's comment that claims that an instructional hatnote would be a "reasonal adaptation" to the 1% or so of Muslim readers...

Wouldn't make any difference to that vociferous 1%. The fact that it's there is enough to piss 'em off.

And I thought Jews hated Muslims.

Only the ones with no money!



(Mod note: Edited to remove the "pork" jokes from Text, Eric, Fred etc which are only flame-bait and distract from the _real_ meat of the discussion here -Selina)

(Fred note: How about spending less time censoring and more time posting about the direction you are supposed to be taking us? - Fred)

This post has been edited by Web Fred: Thu 29th March 2012, 9:13pm

[Fusion]

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

I think that in Wikipedia terms that is exactly what it does mean. At least if people object to you doing such, others will come along and shout "Not censored", no?

[Web Fred]

"Not censored" doesn't mean "add anything (especially stuff religious adherents would find offensive) in for the hell of it as long as it's sorta related to the subject."

I think that in Wikipedia terms that is exactly what it does mean. At least if people object to you doing such, others will come along and shout "Not censored", no?

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in what he actually looked like. Isn't the point of encyclopaedias to answer questions like that? I do know its purpose isn't to kow tow to religious extremists (I was going to say nutters, but I didn't want Selina going after my nuts for it).

[Tarc]

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

[Web Fred]

The "images are included to purposefully offend" comes across as desperate reaching, IMO.

I'd put it closer to being total bollocks.

[Mister Die]

I don't know about you, but I'm interested in what he actually looked like. Isn't the point of encyclopaedias to answer questions like that? I do know its purpose isn't to kow tow to religious extremists (I was going to say nutters, but I didn't want Selina going after my nuts for it).

Some of Muhammad's contemporaries did actually describe what he looked like. A portrait based on one or more of these accounts is fine and indeed encyclopedic. Having more than like 2 photos (a second one should probably be "Islam-friendly," e.g. the ones where his face is veiled, since it'd demonstrate how Islamic culture depicted him) is probably unnecessary.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Fri 30th March 2012, 12:08am

[Fusion]

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

There are two perhaps answers I can think of.

* Yes, it may be nice to know what someone physically looks like (though it is unlikely that the illustrations used in this case are actually much help), but that is not the reason that many of these people want to keep those pictures in, and well you know it.

* By that logic, do you not think it would be helpful to give us a picture of yourself (unless you are indeed a hamster), or would you prefer to be inconsistent?

[Web Fred]

So the concept that we, as human beings, generally like to know what someone physically looks like, especially when being talked about is lost on you then?

There are two perhaps answers I can think of.

* Yes, it may be nice to know what someone physically looks like (though it is unlikely that the illustrations used in this case are actually much help), but that is not the reason that many of these people want to keep those pictures in, and well you know it.

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

* By that logic, do you not think it would be helpful to give us a picture of yourself (unless you are indeed a hamster), or would you prefer to be inconsistent?

I am, in actual fact, a hamster. A very talented and long-lived Abyssinian.

PS: Where has the thread title disappeared to?
Selina? Have you been pressing buttons again?

Moderator's note: A temporary thread title has now been substituted for the original, until the original can be restored.

This post has been edited by Somey: Sun 1st April 2012, 6:13pm

[Fusion]

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

Is that not "the end justifies the means"? I have always regarded that as somewhat of an immoral sentiment.

[Web Fred]

It doesn't really matter what some people's motives are if what they are trying to do also has the effect of elucidating.

Is that not "the end justifies the means"? I have always regarded that as somewhat of an immoral sentiment.

Very close to it yes, not that I've ever been known for having good morals. I'm far too much of a hedonist for that.

[Ottava]

I think this is similar to Wikipedia hosting a picture of "Amish" on that page - the Amish are morally opposed to being photographed. Wikipedia tends to do quite a lot to piss on other groups, mostly because the average Wikipedian is a white, European who has rich enough parents that they get to do nothing all day. They are spoiled and believe that everyone else is lesser than them. The whole thing about penises, trains, etc. all over Commons is just part of the system catering to the worst kinds of people who have nothing better to spend their time than pointless obsessions.